Main menu

Unhappy

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Chuck P. fan. I respect the guy, no other author comes close as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I'm a bit confused with Fugitives and Refugees. I'm in Louisiana and I couldn't care less about the places to go in Portland. Recipes? Gardens? I don't think any of this belongs in a Chuck P. book.

I'm afraid that anyone mildly interested in Chuck may be completely turned off after reading this book. Imagine someone who just read Choke or Survivor last month and heard about this new book coming out. It would be a letdown, I think.

I certainly like the idea of getting into Chuck's head, but this book was just a big advertisement for the city of Portland and a few stories from Chuck.

It's a travel book for Portland, that's kinda what I expected from it, an advertisement. Although it's a bit more interesting than a normal travel book because of the places and things he talks about.

It's probably not going to be everyone's favorite Chuck book, but it is what it says it is. What would you expect to find in a cookbook, or an autobiography, or a book about war, no matter who writes it?

I didn't care about some of the places he mentions, but a lot of it made me want to visit portland a little. And other people too, but not everyone.

The thing is, most of us knew ahead of time what it was going to be about. You must admit, for a travel book, it was well-written. :) It wasn't there to be a real reading book novel-thing like his other books. It is what it is: a book about Portland. Don't be [i]too[/i] disappointed.

Now, I'm a bit confused with Fugitives and Refugees. I'm in Louisiana and I couldn't care less about the places to go in Portland. Recipes? Gardens? I don't think any of this belongs in a Chuck P. book.

the fact that you couldn't figure out that it was a travel book aside, my question here is, who are you to say what does or doesn't belong in a chuck book?

most of the book, anyway, is autobiographical stories, or "postcards"--and the jacket identifies it not only as a travel book but as "the closest thing [chuck] will probably ever write to an autobiography." i appreciated it for that.

It's not that I couldn't figure out that it was a travel book, that was rather obvious. Maybe it all came out wrong.

[B]Why[/B] would Chuck write a travel book? [B]Why[/B] would he do something like this so early in his career? It just seems out of place to me.

The line about it being the closest thing he would ever write to an autobiography is what made me interested - but I didn't learn anything about Chuck. I just learned where the places are to take pictures in Portland and where he got the idea for a scene in Survivor.

I didn't come here to start a fight, I came because I know all of you guys are die-hard Chuck fans, and I consider myself one too. I was wondering if anyone else is a little confused at why this book was ever written.

Quote:

the fact that you couldn't figure out that it was a travel book aside, my question here is, who are you to say what does or doesn't belong in a chuck book?

I'm a big fan and I appreciate his fiction work, which entitles me to an opinion.

He was asked to write the book. And, one assumes, paid a lot of money. It's not exactly "early" in his career, as such; he's been writing for sevaral years, has, what, five published novels under his belt and a sixth completed and out in a couple months. Now for a little experiment in non-fiction. Why not?

My opinion is that you are probably going to argue with any opinion that is not a positive one which makes you seem pretty small minded. Don't get all fussy because something negative is being said here.

I just came to give an opinion on what I consider to be a poorly planned move for Chuck. Don't you wish he got this much media attention for one of his novels? I guarantee that anyone with a new interest in Chuck who doesn't live around Oregon would be a little turned off by this book.

And that's silly to think that "Chuck" doesn't write for his fans. If he didn't then why are his books published?

I read somewhere he *did* write this for his fans--that Crown gave him a hard time about some of the stuff he included--and that he refused to change it--because of his fans.

It is the best travel book I've ever read. It kicks Fromer's ass, any day. Anyway if you look at the back there are bunch of these guides coming out--the Like Water for Chocolate woman's writing one, Ishmael Reed's writing one, etc etc. I don't think you would pick up Laura Esquivel's travel guide expecting a sweet novel...

My opinion is that you are probably going to argue with any opinion that is not a positive one which makes you seem pretty small minded. Don't get all fussy because something negative is being said here.

well, as i have said before, it's comforting to know that whenever we run out of solid, text-based,or otherwise specific and educated arguments, we can always fall back on generalizations.

if you're going to argue about the book, talk about the book. quit telling me what i'm thinking and tell me what YOU think.

Re-read my first post. I was arguing about the book. I did tell you what I was thinking.
You seem like the kind of person who argues with everything and then makes the other person look bad for arguing back.

I'm not the one who turned this thread into something other than what it was intended for.

okay, fine. you say that recipes, gardens, etc. don't belong in a book from chuck. but survivor was chock-full of recipes, methods of getting stains out, etc. chuck has long had that eye for detail.

also, someone just reading choke or survivor who picks up F&R may be thrown for a moment, but generally, the "postcards" are very similar to many of chuck's novels--sometimes the story of the writing of one of his novels or the story behind the story of one of his novels. it's kind of like the "special features" on a DVD--not the same as the movie content, but interesting to fans nonetheless.

you may not care about portland, but chuck certainly does. fans who want a better understanding of what's behind his work may be interested in knowing about it. and as i've said before, anyone "totally turned off" by chuck daring to write nonfiction (when he's written many, many nonfiction short pieces before, which were in the "author" section until just a little while ago) is looking at him as an author very narrowly, and i think, unfairly.

And yes, there was tons of detail with the recipes and whatnot in Survivor, but reading a make-believe character's recipes in a novel is totally different, to me, than what an author thinks are good things to eat.

Good analogy with the DVD, because that reminds me that that's what I was sort of hoping for in the book. Like a behind the scenes, I got this idea from this, or this inspired this type of thing. There was a little bit of that, but I'm probably being a little greedy.

[i]Originally posted by Penuckle [/i]
[B]The line about it being the closest thing he would ever write to an autobiography is what made me interested - but I didn't learn anything about Chuck. I just learned where the places are to take pictures in Portland and where he got the idea for a scene in Survivor. [/B]

Of course there wasn't enough about him in it for me either, but it wasn't supposed to be. Imagine being someone who wants to read a book about Portland, picking up this book and having to read all about some guy they've never heard of ;)

Anyway. I thought it was good, a little autobiography, a little sightseeing. I just like his writing, no matter what he's writing about.

And then, you could even say that all the places and people he decides to include in his book lets you in his mind a little concerning his city.

I don't think it's unfair to criticize a book though. If you don't like it, you just don't. You just shouldn't compare it to something it's not supposed to be.

"I'm afraid that anyone mildly interested in Chuck may be completely turned off after reading this book."

I kind of see where you're coming from. As someone who lives in Portland the book was obviously a lot more exciting for me. I found out some cool new things about the city, and got to read a few interesting stories about his life. But didn't Chuck actually admit he pretty much wrote it for the money? You can't really expect a fantastic novel out of a little travel guide he wrote one summer.

PS am I the only one that doesn't believe half of the crazy stories CP tells?

Of course there wasn't enough about him in it for me either, but it wasn't supposed to be. Imagine being someone who wants to read a book about Portland, picking up this book and having to read all about some guy they've never heard of

excellent point.

Quote:

PS am I the only one that doesn't believe half of the crazy stories CP tells?

if i'm the only other one voting, then yes...have you ever read the emperor thread?

Ohhhh... I just checked it out, it's fucking hilarious.... I could spend hours there, I'll have to get back to it later. Omigod, thanx for the tip, I would never have bothered with such a long thread otherwise :)

No, it's a shame that your comments were so poorly thought out. It's a shame that you would expect something different from what the book tells you it is. It's a shame that you would bash something for being exactly what it is. It's a shame that you feel an author should stick to one thing and, god forbid, explore other territory. It's a shame that you think that you should have to expect something from Chuck P. You set standards for yourself. You're the one who is ruining the experience for yourself.

You set standards for yourself. You're the one who is ruining the experience for yourself.

i couldn't agree more.
and yes, the book is a travel book of sorts. this is the reason it's not in the fiction area with the rest of his novels. this is what it has been hyped up as, a non-fiction travel book on portland, not another nihilistic book. chuck wrote it as someone who grew up in portland. accept it as face value. don't expect it to have deep meanings. expect only stories on portland.
and yes, penuckle, you are very wrong in expecting it to be what you wanted it to be, despite knowing before you read it that it is not what you thought.

I purchased this book expecting the "closest thing to an autobiography Chuck will ever write."
It wasn't anything like an autobiography, and I was unhappy. That's all. I should have done a little more research on the book and I guess I should have also expected to get blasted by a lot of Chuck fanatics for saying something negative about him.

[i]Originally posted by Penuckle [/i]
[B]I purchased this book expecting the "closest thing to an autobiography Chuck will ever write."
It wasn't anything like an autobiography, and I was unhappy. That's all. I should have done a little more research on the book and I guess I should have also expected to get blasted by a lot of Chuck fanatics for saying something negative about him. [/B]

YOU KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT. Knock it off, you sound like a jackass. You were disappointed with the book because you, for whatever reason, were expecting something different. No one would give a shit if you said something bad about Chuck Palahniuk had you actually thought out your argument or had valid points to back it up. As it stands, you sound like a whiny bitch who obviously got in over his head and can't deal with the reprecussions of his actions. Way to be a bitch.

My main argument hasn't changed yet:
I was unhappy with this book because it didn't have as much autobiographical stuff as I thought it would. I made a mistake and was wondering what you guys thought. That's all I came here to say.

When people (instead of conversing with you) start calling you names like little children of course my argument is going to change. I'm going to defend myself.

I'm afraid that anyone mildly interested in Chuck may be completely turned off after reading this book. Imagine someone who just read Choke or Survivor last month and heard about this new book coming out. It would be a letdown, I think.

I certainly like the idea of getting into Chuck's head, but this book was just a big advertisement for the city of Portland and a few stories from Chuck.

now, your original argument has nothing to with "autobiographical stuff". even if that were your point, it's still full of crap. if it was autobiographical, which you were supposedly expecting it to be, it would not be found in the god-damned travel guide section. it would not be called "Fugitives and Refugees: A Walk in Portland, Oregon". you got your feedback, and pleanty of people have calmly tried to point out to you your mistake in your presumptions of your question. now you're just making an ass out of yourself.

[i]Originally posted by Penuckle [/i]
[B]My main argument hasn't changed yet:
I was unhappy with this book because it didn't have as much autobiographical stuff as I thought it would. I made a mistake and was wondering what you guys thought. That's all I came here to say.

When people (instead of conversing with you) start calling you names like little children of course my argument is going to change. I'm going to defend myself.

Wouldn't you? [/B]

Look at my screen name. Of course I resort to name calling. It's an easy way to push buttons and weed out the people that can't hang. Plus, I find it funny. As for your argument, a) you really didn't bad mouth Chuck, b) no one really stepped in and defended Chuck against your non-existent slandering, c) like I said, no one would give a shit either way. The reason people are harping on you is because your argument is poorly devised and inadequately substantiated.

Ok.
I stand by my argument that I didn't come here to start a fight, I was just disappointed in the book and wanted to see what you guys thought.
However, most of you have brought up good points about my argument and you're right. I know that my argument wasn't perfect, but I didn't put a lot of thought into it, because I didn't realize the backlash it would cause. That's my fault.

trypdwyre:
I didn't find the book in the travel section, I found it in the new releases section. And I thought it would be more autobiographical because it was being advertised as the closest thing to one that Chuck would ever write. I was wrong in hoping that it would be more autobiographical. I've pointed out several times now that my argument has holes in it and that some of you have made good points, so I don't know how I'm being an ass at all about this.

-Chuck has written a lot of non-fiction a bunch of magazine articles, to be exact. Most of them aren't online anymore, but you can find these under the books|non-fiction header.

No, they're not like how he writes in his novels, but they're still good.

Chuck was paid, I believe, a $50,000 advance to write F&R. This was mentioned in an interview, I'm not sure which one at this moment.

Yeah, I was a [i]bit[/i] disappointed, but it was worth the $17, and worth the $98 worth of accumulating overdraft fees because I'm stupid and never open my bank notices. Through my own carelessness, I may have purchased the most expensive copy of F&R.

That's all paid up now. Don't be like me. Open your mail when you get it, not three weeks later.

Even Chuck himself stated that the only reason he wrote this book is because his agent talked him into it. Read my piece entitled "Finding Chuck Palahniuk". He was more than busy working on Diary and frankly I don't think he could have given two shits how the book turned out, he seemed just happy to have it out of his hair. Being a writer is a business like anything else. Some shit you do for artistic integrity and some shit you do just to make a quick buck. He's still got my props...

but it was worth the $17, and worth the $98 worth of accumulating overdraft fees because I'm stupid and never open my bank notices. Through my own carelessness, I may have purchased the most expensive copy of F&R.

[QUOTE=insomnomaniac] it's kind of like the "special features" on a DVD--not the same as the movie content, but interesting to fans nonetheless.
QUOTE]

unfortunately this book was nothing more than filler. I don't buy DVDs for the bonus material I buy them for the film. This book unfortunately is the equivelent of buying a DVD with only a couple of deleted scenes, completely lacking anything like a directors commentary which gives good insight into the creators mind.
As for "Interesting to fans", I have to say that I have bought all chucks books and f&g and non fiction were a big dissapointment. The stories were not well crafted and without the depth of his other novels. If I want short interesting stories I'll go down the pub and listen to my friends talk about how their parents tried to kill them, or how they almost killed themselves drunkenly setting off fireworks.
I can honestly say that chucks last two books managed to both blow and suck at the same time.
Penuckle wasn't wrong to think this new chuck venture would put of new potential fans but he left out the fact that It is souring the minds of devout fans too.

Oh yeah and if I want a cook book, I'll look in the fucking cookery section

are you saying you just blindly bought the book, not bothering to see first what you were buying? that smacks of consumerism and idiodicy. i dunno about you, but i always make sure i want what i buy before i buy it.

who are you, or I, or that guy over there to say what belongs in an authors book? Are you him? can you write like him and think like him?? If tomarrow C.P. came out with a book on dog grooming you wouldnt have to go out and buy it. you don't own this author, and he doesnt owe you a thing. He wrote a book and it wasnt the cookie cutter that you expected (As much as any C.P. book can be a cookie cutter). Get your money's worth out of it and go visit Portland. I just moved here, and for the very reason will probably go pick up F&R.
But back to my main point- no one but the artist himself owns his mind, his brain, his thoughts. He can write whatever the hell he wants and it will always belong in a "Palahniuk book", because in reality anything he writes is one.
*steps off her soap box*

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.